Reading over the problems of climate change activists, it seems to me that they are in the same quandary as Indian nationalists were in - until Gandhi turned up. That is to say, they are a small, fairly middle-class lobby group. Gandhi turned Indian nationalism into a mass movement, and the way he did it was a) to connect personally with Indian people b) to incorporate their concerns - which were more local and economic in nature - into the otherwise rather more rarefied discourse of Indian nationalism. Hence the famous salt march - salt wasn't a hugely important issue, but it was a good icon which existed at the crossover point between the British regime and most people's everyday concerns. Or so I have read. If you apply this to today's greens, the lesson would seem to be that they need to look for issues which are both a) green and b) of genuine, immediate concern to people outside the "green ghetto," that is to say, probably, smaller, more local, and more of a direct appeal to the (legitimate) self-interests of jo(e) public than more "rarefied" green issues like climate change. In my home town of Sheffield there is one possible example - a rather toxic landfill and waste incinerator spewing out dioxins. Someone may now point out that dioxins are harmless in minute quantities - I believe you, but it's the only example I can think of. The general point is issues which are both green and generally appealing - because they impact directly and immediately on local health and well-being. Is that perhaps what's missing? What do people think?